nethackfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Cheating
Discovered the Wizard Bones cheat myself a couple of years ago, but have never heard anyone else use it. I might even be a sort of pioneer of Nethack cheating. Nah, probably not. Wrote the cheat here, anyway. - Potman (Guest), Dec 9, 2006 How should the following behaviors be classified? *manually keeping track of things the player doesn't usually know. That is, nutrition and prayer timeouts, etc. *doing the same as above, but using a hex editor or other tool to view the exact value in the memory. *using keyboard macros to automate death farming, pudding farming, etc - anonymous, Dec 9, 2006 *Not cheating. If you manage to find out what the exact numbers are (I don't know them), I don't see why you couldn't use them. *Probably cheating. *Probably cheating. These are only my opinions, of course. - Potman (Guest), Dec 10, 2006 *Not cheating. It's "spoiled", but it's not cheating. Prayer timeout is random anyway, and it's really hard to know. *Cheating. There's minor variation on hunger that it's not possible to know (such as from jumping, spellcasting, etc) and looking up these values is cheating. *Not cheating. All it does is let you go faster. - JoshJ. 10/12/07 Debuggers I don't know how NetHack works so I can't do this myself (yeah, just like I could anyway), but wouldn't using of a debugger (to edit the game's memory at runtime) allow you to "easily" change your HP and do plenty of other stuff? Should this be mentioned? --212.149.216.233 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Oh sure, it's definitely possible. You could even build a simple GUI that pokes memory addresses for object identification, shows damage calculations, displays warnings about corpses, halts the game when you're in danger and so forth and so on. However, for most of these you'll need a local game, and that's hardly worth any bragging points. For the rest, there's always Interhack ;) Renx 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) RNG abuse First of all, the "Definitely cheating" section says "none of the methods of cheating described below are possible on a multi-user system", but RNG abuse is possible on a multi-user system (in fact that was the main point of Sartok's post), so at the very least this sentence needs to be corrected. I'm also puzzled by why (for example) Wizard Bones is only "Probably cheating" whereas RNG abuse is "Definitely cheating." They seem equally bad to me, and if I had to pick one that was worse, I'd pick Wizard Bones. djao 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC) :You are right. I didn't read the introduction when I added the RNG abuse chapter, but I have modified it now. I also agree with you in the case of Wizard Bones and I have moved it under the "Definitely cheating" header. —ZeroOne (talk / ) 18:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC) :: Excellent. I like it. djao 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Dumplogs How would you clasify reading dumplogs - to identify things on bones level? --Stevko sk 01:56, January 2, 2010 (UTC) : In my book, it's on par with Wizard Bones / Selectively deleting bones / Save-scumming. -Tjr 03:12, January 2, 2010 (UTC) Credit Cloning I don't think I've seen confirmation of this anywhere, but is it or is it not cheating? I personally think it's a bit slack, but it's useful as all hell. It's a bit like file sharing :D --Archmage84 11:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC) :Consider the apport stat for pets. In my mind, it is absolutely useless for everything BUT credit cloning. I find it annoying almost every other time; I'm either trying to pick up the item myself that my dog just picked up or they're deactivating an active Elbereth square or similar. I'd say that pets were given apport for the sole purpose of allowing credit cloning. -- Qazmlpok 11:33, June 15, 2010 (UTC) :I second that. Tjr 12:52, June 15, 2010 (UTC) :In that case, can we have something in the main article confirming this? It's a topic of disagreement with me and my friend. --Archmage84 06:14, June 18, 2010 (UTC)